We use cookies to give you the best possible experience on our site. Click here to find out more. Allow cookies
x
LOG IN HERE
Username
Password

arrow Register here

Forgotten password?

THE CHATTER BOX

 
  
  
  The Chatter Box : Blathering On
  
  
  
 
Messages 1 2 3 

Friendly Fire:did they mean Deadly Fire? by bIG bLOGGER on 24 October 2008 3:01pm
 
Subtitled: "How to lose friends and alienate people"

Okay,it's easy enough to sit back and play the 'armchair critic'; a variety of reasons can be advanced for why 'friendly fire' incidents happen at all,but the fact remains,there are way too many of them.

In AFGHANISTAN this past week,American attack helicopters killed 9 Afghan soldiers--soldiers being trained mostly by US troops--in a deadly attack on an Afghan Army post in Khost province. 3 more were seriously wounded.
Most of the incidents have affected
Afghan civilians or police units. Thus:-

In August (2008) US forces mistakenly killed 90 civilians in Nawabad village in the province of Herat,Western Afghanistan,after acting on misleading intelligence from tribesmen.
In July (2008) US aircraft bombed a double wedding celebration in Nangarhar province,killing 47 guests,including both brides.
In July (2008) US aircraft bombed a civilian truck in Kunar province,killing 15 people,including Afghan medical workers working for a Western aid agency.
A week ago, 25 villagers were killed close to Lashkar Gah,in Helmand province,during a search operation.

In the first 8 months of 2008,UN observers estimate the civilian deaths by Western airstrikes at 393, whereas NATO sources put the figure much lower at 161.
Last year,President Karzai wept as he called on Western forces to take greater care.

OPINION:..inevitable collateral damage?
...US troops who are too gung-ho?
...or careless errors which are avoidable?
 
Re: Friendly Fire:did they mean Deadly Fire? (edited) by Lounge Trekker on 24 October 2008 3:07pm
 
I share all three opinions to which can be added: American forces don't fight defensively to protect themselves or their people. They are looking for something to kill. To an American combat soldier these aren't people they are killing they are insurgents, the enemy, the bad guys, the target. It appears to me that de-humanizing the act of war is only for the benefit of the generals and political leaders.

These aren't the Iraq war, or the Afghan war; they are the North American war. We don't want to spill blood on our own soil.

You're right John, I wear the same hat as they do when I leave the house. Whether I voted for them or not, I have the same blood-stained clothes.

An opinion based on what I see on the 'news', from both Canadian and American propaganda machines.

Lounge Target
 
Re: Friendly Fire:did they mean Deadly Fire? by johnnythemonkey on 24 October 2008 3:27pm
 
Less of the anti-Americanism please. They are the good guys with white hats.
 
Re: Friendly Fire:did they mean Deadly Fire? by johnnythemonkey on 24 October 2008 7:22pm
 
I feel sorry for Americans, they must carry a national shame in their pysche like Germans ought to have after WW2.
The only worrying thing is that the Chinese will soon supplant them as the world superpower.
 
Re: Friendly Fire:did they mean Deadly Fire? by johnnythemonkey on 24 October 2008 7:52pm
 
Have to be honest, the U.K is involved in the same wars albeit as America's poodle and we are doing shit all about it. Including me. What's happened to us all ?
 
Re: Friendly Fire:did they mean Deadly Fire? by MMMmmm... on 24 October 2008 7:58pm
 
Johnny et al., you should know better than to lump us all together :) I have always been against war unless it was truly necessary (like against Hitler) or for direct self-defense. I was so against going into Iraq that I would pace the floors, and yell "No!" at the TV, in the months leading up to the war. I even cried for all those who were going to die before they did. I said: "They're still alive, I'm crying for them now, and they're still alive. Stop this war now!"

In Afghanistan, a big part of the problem is human error, whether in the intense and often confusing heat of direct combat, or due to inadequacies in judging the intelligence and technological findings.

I think they have learned from Iraq. They know that dehumanizing and killing civilians works against them. But there are all kinds of people and situations in wars that can get out of control.

 
Re: Friendly Fire:did they mean Deadly Fire? by Lounge Trekker on 24 October 2008 8:04pm
 
I feel badly about the role Canada is playing. I didn't vote for the current leadership partly because of the support for continued Canadian involvement. Far from being 'peacekeeper' like they have tried to sell to us for decades. To use a sports analogy Canada acts as waterboy (read: gas jockey) to the winning team.

What has happened to us? We are being taken by big business to whom war is a profit-making enterprise.

Feel free to lump us all together with the Americans when talking negatively about war-for-profit. There is little difference between us, just an imaginary line at the border. All I've done about it is write a few letters to MP's, Cabinet members and the PM himself.

Dissapointed Trekker
 
Re: Friendly Fire:did they mean Deadly Fire? by MMMmmm... on 24 October 2008 8:07pm
 
I really think if Barack is elected, it will be a change for the better for the whole world. He really stands for peace and unity. John McCain likes to talk about our "enemies" all the time. This causes more polarization. It's a matter of values.
 
Re: Friendly Fire:did they mean Deadly Fire? by johnnythemonkey on 24 October 2008 8:09pm
 
But none of us are protesting. I know that a lot of Americans are against these wars, I just post shit to wind you guys up and amuse myself. American boys are coming home in body bags and so are ours. I just wish we could stop it and I feel guilty for doing bugger all.
 
Re: Friendly Fire:did they mean Deadly Fire? by Ginnyp on 24 October 2008 11:36pm
 
I see that very young men and women are still signing up for Armed Forces despite their bosses letting them down.
Why is this?
 
Messages 1 2 3 




  Reply to this post:
 
 
  Username 
 
 
  Password 
 
 
 
 
  Register here
 

INSTRUCTIONS

Select a discussion theme.
Register (or log in if you have not yet done so).

To start a new discussion topic:

Write the name of the topic in the 'Subject' box.
Type your message in the larger box to contribute.
Click 'Submit'.

To join a discussion topic:

Click on the discussion topic of your choice.
Type your message in the larger box to contribute.
Click 'Submit'.

To edit your message:

You can edit a message at any time after posting it as long as you're signed in.
Click on the 'Edit your message' link above the message.
Make your desired changes.
Click 'Submit'.

If you find you don't want to change the message after all, click on 'Return without changes'.

To set a chatmark:

Register (or log in if you have not yet done so).
Click on the "Set chatmark" link on the Chatter Box pages. This will set the time at which you have logged in.
Click on the "Go to chatmark" link to see all messages posted since you set your chatmark.

You can set your chatmark at any time and as often as you like.